For many people with disabilities and chronic illness, having access to the right medication is vital. But since Roe v. Wade was struck down by the Supreme Court last month, women are being cut off from their medication by doctors or insurance companies, often without being offered an alternative, because those drugs are considered “abortifacients.”
Because some medications used to treat lupus, cancer or rheumatoid arthritis, for example, can cause a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, women deemed of childbearing age are being told that having a uterus precludes them from having access to the drugs required to function in everyday life. Even in states where abortion is protected, some providers are afraid of state penalties or criminal consequences of anti-abortion laws that criminalize aiding and abetting an abortion, even if the female patients are being prescribed these drugs to cope with conditions that are completely unrelated to pregnancy.
There are reports of children suffering from juvenile arthritis being denied the drug until they can show evidence that they have not been impregnated. Some pharmacies are also afraid of failing to meet the requirements of the various abortion restrictions and bans and have stopped filling prescriptions for methotrexate altogether. When questioned by Fox 5, CVS refused to comment directly on the issue but said they “encourage providers to include their diagnosis on the prescriptions they write to help ensure patients have quick and easy access to medications.” This uncertainty has left a lot of female patients confused, bewildered and feeling completely left in the dark as they receive phone calls or letters informing them they can no longer have access to the treatment they need. . . .
The Arthritis Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for people living with arthritis, sounded the alarm in a statement a few days after Roe was overturned, warning that female patients’ prescriptions weren’t being filled. “Unfortunately, arthritis patients who rely on methotrexate are reporting difficulty accessing it. At least one state — Texas — allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for misoprostol and methotrexate, which together can be used for medical abortions.”
Chronic illness advocates are stupefied. Nitika Chopra, the founder of Chronicon, an online and in-person community for people dealing with chronic illness, says that she has been flooded with messages from women who are terrified. . . .
The irony of course is that there is nothing “pro-life” about obstructing women from having access to life-saving medication. It’s merciless and inhumane. It reveals the true extent of an ideology that relies on emotional delusions like calling abortion, a procedure that can save a person’s life, “murder,” or unscientific parables like “life at conception” that, when taken seriously by lawmakers, creates irrationally cruel consequences — like refusing a person the medicine they need to live.
There’s also nothing “pro-life” about forcing a woman who is sick to get off a medication that would prevent her from having children she does not want. “Denying people access to medication that allows them to live the best life possible is the very opposite of pro-life,” Chopra said. “You are taking away our opportunity to actually live, without pain and further damage to our health. There is nothing life-affirming about that at all.”